Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would make a small but respectful change to federal law by adding the Mayor of the District of Columbia to the list of named principals for whom the President shall order the U.S. flag be flown at half-staff. Current law states that the President shall make this order ``upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory.'' Surely the D.C. Mayor, who has the same responsibilities as governors of states and territories, should qualify as such a principal. This bill is part of our series of bills to ensure equal treatment for the over 700,000 D.C. residents. In the 116th Congress, the House Committee on the Judiciary passed this bill.

Congress has already acknowledged that D.C. is entitled to a place among the states for certain honors. For example, legislation we got enacted gave D.C. a coin after D.C. was omitted from legislation creating coins for the states and required the armed services to display the D.C. flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. We got D.C.'s Frederick Douglass and Pierre L'Enfant statues placed in the Capitol, alongside two statues from each state. We also successfully worked with the U.S. Postal Service to create a D.C. stamp, like the stamps for the states, and with the National Park Service to add the D.C. flag alongside the state flags near Union Station.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic, anti- immigrant bill, which would nullify laws, policies, and practices enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia Government. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of local self-government.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters, one from every Member of D.C.'s locally elected legislature, the Council; and one from D.C.'s locally elected Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, opposing this bill.

Council of the District of Columbia,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to

express our opposition to three pieces of legislation we

understand will be considered on the House floor this week.

All three bills would repeal provisions in laws that were

carefully and deliberately enacted by the Council for the

benefit of all District residents.

H.R. 2096 would repeal several efforts by the Council to

ensure that police officers who violate the law and

contravene public safety are appropriately disciplined. The

bill would strip the Chief of the Metropolitan Police

Department (MPD) of the authority to discipline officers who

violate the law or MPD policy. It would also limit the MPD

Chief's discretion to impose disciplinary penalties greater

than those recommended by the board investigating the

allegations made against an officer. Stripping MPD management

of its authority in this area would

greatly undermine both MPD and public safety. A 2022 D.C.

Auditor's report catalogued cases where MPD was barred from

firing officers who had committed sexual and domestic

violence, who were arrested for assorted criminal activity,

or who gave false statements, misused their firearms, or

slept on the job. H.R. 2096 would also restore a 90-day

statute of limitations for claims against police officers

that, in the past, was repeatedly used by officers seeking to

avoid accountability. Every MPD Chief for the past 15 years

has supported this reform because it empowers police

leadership--not a third-party board or arbitrator--to

determine the appropriate standards of conduct and discipline

for their officers. Congress should not substitute its

authority for that of local elected leaders and MPD Chiefs

who have examined these issues closely.

We support having a robust and strong police force and work

closely with MPD leadership to provide them with the tools

they need to make the city safe. Part of that effort includes

ensuring that the force can appropriately remove officers who

violate the law, MPD policies, and the public trust. When the

public trusts that MPD can effectively police its own,

residents are more likely to cooperate in investigations and

more likely to assist in prosecution, making the District

safer. H.R. 2096 would make it harder for law enforcement

leadership in the Nation's Capital to remove bad actors who

undermine that trust.

We also oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a 2022 law

extending voting rights in local District elections to non-

citizen residents. Non-citizens enjoy similar voting rights

in 15 other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and

Oakland, California, Montpelier, Vermont, and a number of

jurisdictions in neighboring Maryland. It continues to be

unlawful for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the

District. In fact, federal law has prohibited non-citizens

from voting in federal elections since 1996. Our local law

cannot and does not attempt to change that.

Finally, we oppose H.R. 2056, which attempts to negate

provisions in local District law governing how MPD and other

District agencies participate in federal immigration

enforcement efforts. This law has been on the books for 13

years and makes it clear that District officials must

cooperate with any court order directing that an individual

in District custody suspected of an immigration violation be

detained or transferred to federal custody. H.R. 2056 would

also eliminate rules governing information sharing between

the District and federal law enforcement on immigration

matters. In sum, the bill would scrap rules and practices

that are clear and familiar and replace them with nothing.

This will only cause confusion and uncertainty both for law

enforcement and those suspected of an immigration violation.

The Council is already considering a proposal from Mayor

Muriel Bowser to reconsider the District's laws and policies

in this area. We respectfully request that you allow us to do

that work.

Thank you for your consideration and your attention to

these important matters. We look forward to working with you

on our shared goals to advance the safety, security, and

prosperity of the District.

Sincerely,

Phil Mendelson,

Chairman, At-Large.

Anita Bonds,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Robert C. White,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Brooke Pinto,

Councilmember, Ward 2.

Kenyan R. McDuffie,

Chair Pro-Tempore, At-Large.

Christina Henderson,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Brianne K. Nadeau,

Councilmember, Ward 1.

Matthew Frumin,

Councilmember, Ward 3.

Janeese Lewis George,

Councilmember, Ward 4.

Charles Allen,

Councilmember, Ward 6.

Zachary Parker,

Councilmember, Ward 5.

Wendell Felder,

Councilmember, Ward 7.

Mr. Speaker, D.C. residents are treated as second-class citizens by Congress. They are required to pay Federal taxes, serve on Federal juries, and register with Selective Service in the same manner as residents of the States. They have served in the military since the Revolutionary War, which was fought to end taxation without representation and to give consent to the governed. Yet, Congress has denied them voting representation in Congress and full local self- government over the past 200 years.

Last Congress, 100 bills and amendments were introduced to repeal or block local D.C. laws and policies. This Congress, 28 such bills and amendments have already been introduced, including bills to abolish the locally elected D.C. Government.

Three months ago, Congress passed a bill that cut over $1 billion from the local D.C. budget, which consists entirely of locally raised revenue. While Congress has the authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it does not have a duty to do so.

In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''

In 1953, the Supreme Court held that: ``There is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.''

The council has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This is called democracy.

Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is the antithesis of democracy.

Congress has the authority to grant D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government. It simply needs to pass H.R. 51, the D.C. statehood bill, which would make the residential and commercial areas of D.C. a State.

The Admissions Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit new States. All 37 new States were admitted by an act of Congress. The District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to reduce the size of the Federal district, which it has previously done.

The substance of H.R. 2056 is irrelevant since there is no justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters, but I will briefly discuss it.

Consistent with Federal law, the position of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and D.C.'s values, D.C. limits cooperation with Federal immigration agencies. D.C. concluded that cooperating with Federal immigration agencies would make D.C. less safe for all residents by diverting police resources

and discouraging immigrants from interacting with the police department and other government agencies. Many States, cities, and counties have reached the same conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to respect the will of D.C. residents by voting ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the DACOR Bacon House (the ``House''), formerly known as the Ringgold-Carroll House. The House, a building in the District of Columbia, celebrates its bicentennial today.

The House is situated on land previously owned by David Burnes, whose other landholdings now house the National Mall, the White House and other notable D.C. landmarks.

The House was constructed in 1825 by Tench Ringgold using enslaved individuals. Shortly after being built, the House's boarders included Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall and occasionally other Supreme Court Justices, including Joseph Story, Gabriel Duvall, Smith Thompson and Henry Baldwin.

In 1835, the House was sold to former Maryland Governor Samuel Sprigg, who gifted it to his daughter and son-in-law, Sally Sprigg and William Thomas Carroll, the Clerk of the Supreme Court. When the Carrolls owned the House, it hosted numerous dignitaries, including President Abraham Lincoln.

From the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, the House remained a home for dignitaries. Residents included Russian Imperial Minister Nikolai Shishkin and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Melville W. Fuller, who hosted Presidents Grover Cleveland and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as William Howard Taft during his tenure as Secretary of War.

Illinois Senator Medill McCormick and his wife, future Congresswoman Ruth Hanna McCormick, resided in the House during the 1920s, where they entertained lawmakers and their spouses.

In 1925, the House was purchased by Congressman Robert Low Bacon and his wife, Virginia Murray Bacon. Virginia Murray Bacon founded the Bacon House Foundation, which worked with the DACOR Education and Welfare Foundation to form the DACOR Bacon

House Foundation, which maintains and preserves the House today.

Since 1986, the House has served as DACOR's headquarters, regularly hosting educational programming related to foreign policy, including professional development and networking. The House continues to welcome dignitaries, including the numerous ambassadors, military officers, political appointees and members of Congress who are members of DACOR.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the DACOR Bacon House for its contributions to American history.

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this antidemocratic bill, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia Government. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of local self-government.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three letters, including a letter from D.C.'s locally elected Chief Executive, Mayor Muriel Bowser, opposing this bill; a letter from every Member of D.C.'s locally elected legislature, the Council, opposing this bill; and a letter from D.C.'s locally elected attorney general, Brian Schwalb, opposing this bill.

May 21, 2025.

Hon. James Comer,

Chairman, House Oversight Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Gerald Connolly,

Ranking Member, House Oversight Committee,

Washington, DC.

Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Connolly: As Mayor of

Washington, DC, I write to express my Administration's

opposition to H.R. 2096, the ``Protecting Our Nation's

Capital Emergency Act of 2025''. This legislation purports to

protect hardworking police officers from unnecessary,

protracted disciplinary procedures. However, it would reverse

common-sense disciplinary reforms adopted by the District to

the sole benefit of those few Metropolitan Police Department

(MPD) officers who engage in egregious, sometimes criminal

misconduct and seek to evade accountability.

A 2022 report by the District of Columbia Auditor

documented the shortcomings of the prior disciplinary

process. It chronicled the cumbersome, union-negotiated

process that on average took eight years to resolve a

termination case. Over the 18-month period considered in the

audit, 36 terminated police officers were reinstated within

five and a half years of their terminations, at a cost of

over $14 million in backpay to DC taxpayers. This process was

neither efficient for the officers nor responsible to the

residents of the District.

The conduct for those terminated officers included criminal

acts such as sexual assault, sexual abuse, indecent exposure,

solicitation of prostitution, domestic violence, receiving

stolen property, fraud, and false statements. For many of

those cases, the misconduct was not in dispute; and in nearly

40 percent of the reinstatements, labor arbitrators applied

their own, often conflicting, interpretations of procedural

requirements and ordered reinstatement without even

considering the merits of the cases.

The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act

of 2022 removed serious police discipline from collective

bargaining and introduced additional transparency and

accountability measures to address these systemic problems.

This new process has been in place for more than two years

and has been a success. Members are still entitled to union

representation throughout the process and MPD policy still

requires disciplinary cases to commence timely within 90

days, although those deadlines are tolled during criminal

investigations.

Under the new system, members have a right to be heard, in

person, before any discipline is imposed, and the vast

majority of disciplinary cases are resolved by agreement.

While labor arbitrators have been removed from the process,

members still have the right to appeal their discipline to

the independent Office of Employee Appeals (OEA). OEA has

upheld the two termination cases it has considered under the

new system--one originally overturned on a timing

technicality involving a member who worked unauthorized

outside employment while on duty, accepted gratuities, and

made untruthful statements; and another where the member had

repeated alcohol-related misconduct, including driving under

the influence, public intoxication, and being the subject of

a Substantial Risk Order that prohibited him from possessing

a firearm. While the sample size is small, these sustained

terminations are unquestionably the right outcomes for MPD,

our residents and visitors, and the local and national

elected officials that MPD serves.

The law enforcement disciplinary reforms implemented by the

District were long overdue. They transformed a process where

the determination of whether or not an officer is

fit to wear the badge rests not with an unaccountable labor

arbitrator, but with the official who bears ultimate

responsibility for those members' conduct--the Chief of

Police. I urge you once again to reject H.R. 2096, the

``Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act of 2025,''

and to support the work of my Administration, including the

Chief of Police, to maintain these critical accountability

measures for officers that engage in egregious and criminal

misconduct.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser,

Mayor.

Madam Speaker, Republicans regularly introduce legislation to repeal local D.C. laws. What is different about this bill is it also overrides longstanding wishes of the D.C. police department.

For at least a quarter century, the D.C. police department has requested increased authority to discipline officers for misconduct. The Council gave the department this authority after the murder of George Floyd. This bill would take away this authority.

I will discuss the justification and timing of this bill, though it is always wrong and never the right time for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. This bill says it is necessary to combat rising violent crime in D.C. and to improve the retention and recruitment of D.C. police officers. This bill has its facts wrong.

Last year, violent crime in D.C. reached a more than 30-year low. This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period last year. Police departments throughout the country, in both red and blue States, are struggling to retain and recruit officers, and they have been for many years.

The timing of the introduction and consideration of this bill is stunning. It was introduced the same day Congress cut the local D.C. budget by more than $1 billion. This fiscal sabotage did not save the Federal Government any money, since the local D.C. budget consists entirely of locally raised revenue. The Senate immediately passed the District of Columbia Local Funds Act

to reverse this cut. Although President Trump and the National Fraternal Order of Police called for the House to immediately pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act, the District of Columbia Local Funds Act has been sitting in this House for 3 months.

Madam Speaker, I close by discussing democracy, or lack thereof, in D.C. The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation. Yet, D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on local or Federal matters, and they pay full Federal taxes while being denied voting representation in Congress.

If Republicans cared about D.C. residents or democracy, they would take up H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. H.R. 51 would admit the residential and commercial areas of D.C. as a State, giving D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self- government.

Congress has the authority to admit the new State. The Admissions Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit new States. All 37 new States were admitted by an act of Congress. The District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to reduce the size of the Federal district, which it has previously done.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2096 and to pass the D.C. statehood bill and the District of Columbia Local Funds Act.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic, paternalistic bill, which would repeal a law enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia Government and impose a new law on D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from every member of D.C.'s local elected legislature, the council, opposing this bill.

Council of the District of Columbia,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to

express our opposition to three pieces of legislation we

understand will be considered on the House floor this week.

All three bills would repeal provisions in laws that were

carefully and deliberately enacted by the Council for the

benefit of all District residents.

H.R. 2096 would repeal several efforts by the Council to

ensure that police officers who violate the law and

contravene public safety are appropriately disciplined. The

bill would strip the Chief of the Metropolitan Police

Department (MPD) of the authority to discipline officers who

violate the law or MPD policy. It would also limit the MPD

Chief's discretion to impose disciplinary penalties greater

than those recommended by the board investigating the

allegations made against an officer. Stripping MPD management

of its authority in this area would greatly undermine both

MPD and public safety. A 2022 D.C. Auditor's report

catalogued cases where MPD was barred from firing officers

who had committed sexual and domestic violence, who were

arrested for assorted criminal activity, or who gave false

statements, misused their firearms, or slept on the job. H.R.

2096 would also restore a 90-day statute of limitations for

claims against police officers that, in the past, was

repeatedly used by officers seeking to avoid accountability.

Every MPD Chief for the past 15 years has supported this

reform because it empowers police leadership--not a third-

party board or arbitrator--to determine the appropriate

standards of conduct and discipline for their officers.

Congress should not substitute its authority for that of

local elected leaders and MPD Chiefs who have examined these

issues closely.

We support having a robust and strong police force and work

closely with MPD leadership to provide them with the tools

they need to make the city safe. Part of that effort includes

ensuring that the force can appropriately remove officers who

violate the law, MPD policies, and the public trust. When the

public trusts that MPD can effectively police its own,

residents are more likely to cooperate in investigations and

more likely to assist in prosecution, making the District

safer. H.R. 2096 would make it harder for law enforcement

leadership in the Nation's Capital to remove bad actors who

undermine that trust.

We also oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a 2022 law

extending voting rights in local District elections to non-

citizen residents. Non-citizens enjoy similar voting rights

in 15 other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and

Oakland, California, Montpelier, Vermont, and a number of

jurisdictions in neighboring Maryland. It continues to be

unlawful for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the

District. In fact, federal law has prohibited non-citizens

from voting in federal elections since 1996. Our local law

cannot and does not attempt to change that.

Finally, we oppose H.R. 2056, which attempts to negate

provisions in local District law governing how MPD and other

District agencies participate in federal immigration

enforcement efforts. This law has been on the books for 13

years and makes it clear that District officials must

cooperate with any court order directing that an individual

in District custody suspected of an immigration violation be

detained or transferred to federal custody. H.R. 2056 would

also eliminate rules governing information sharing between

the District and federal law enforcement on immigration

matters. In sum, the bill would scrap rules and practices

that are clear and familiar and replace them with nothing.

This will only cause confusion and uncertainty both for law

enforcement and those suspected of an immigration violation.

The Council is already considering a proposal from Mayor

Muriel Bowser to reconsider the District's laws and policies

in this area. We respectfully request that you allow us to do

that work.

Thank you for your consideration and your attention to

these important matters. We look forward to working with you

on our shared goals to advance the safety, security, and

prosperity of the District.

Sincerely,

Phil Mendelson,

Chairman, At-Large.

Anita Bonds,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Robert C. White,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Brooke Pinto,

Councilmember,

Ward 2.

Kenyan R. McDuffie,

Chair Pro-Tempore,

At-Large.

Christina Henderson,

Councilmember,

At-Large.

Brianne K. Nadeau,

Councilmember,

Ward 1.

Matthew Frumin,

Councilmember,

Ward 3.

Janeese Lewis George,

Councilmember,

Ward 4

Charles Allen,

Councilmember,

Ward 6.

Zachary Parker,

Councilmember,

Ward 5.

Wendell Felder,

Councilmember,

Ward 7.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from D.C.'s locally elected attorney general, Brian Schwalb, opposing this bill.

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the

Attorney General,

June 9, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: I write

in opposition to three pieces of legislation before you

today, H.R. 2096, H.R. 884, and H.R. 2056. These bills seek

to repeal, explicitly or in effect, three local D.C. laws

pertaining to three inherently local issues, namely the

administration of local elections, the allocation of finite

local law enforcement resources, and the processes for

disciplining local police officers if they engage in

misconduct. The D.C. Council--whose members are elected by

and are directly accountable to District residents--passed

those laws after extensive debate and consideration. It would

be undemocratic and contrary to the principles of local

autonomy on which this country was founded for Members of

Congress, in whose election District residents have no say,

to vote to upend these purely local laws.

District residents should have the same right as all other

Americans to govern our local affairs. Just like your

constituents in Louisiana and New York, and indeed the

constituents in all of your colleagues' home states across

the country, the more than 700,000 residents who call the

District home know and care deeply about the local issues

that uniquely impact our lives. Our democratically elected

local officials work closely with policy experts, local law

enforcement, and other community stakeholders to pass laws

that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians.

Substituting the will of District voters and the duly elected

D.C. Council for that of federal politicians is, simply put,

un-democratic. Even if members of Congress might vote

differently on similar local issues for their own

jurisdictions, the residents of D.C. deserve to have our

local laws respected without interference from the federal

government.

I urge you and your colleagues to vote against advancing

these proposals.

Sincerely,

Brian L. Schwalb,

Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, last Congress, Republicans introduced 26 bills or amendments to change local D.C. election laws, including 14 to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C. or to repeal, nullify, or prohibit the carrying out of the local D.C. law that allows noncitizens to vote in local elections.

Yet, Republicans refused to make the only election law change D.C. has requested, which is to make D.C. a State so they can hold elections for voting Members of the House and Senate.

While Congress has the authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it is not required to do so. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''

In 1953, the Supreme Court held that ``there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss democracy, or lack thereof, in D.C. There are 700,000 D.C. residents. D.C. residents are required to pay Federal taxes, register with the Selective Service System, and serve on Federal juries in the same manner as residents of States. Yet, D.C. residents have no voting representation in Congress, and Congress has the ultimate say on local D.C. matters.

The council has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy.

Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is the antithesis of democracy.

The substance of this bill is irrelevant since there is never jurisdiction for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. However, I will briefly discuss it.

D.C. allows noncitizens to vote in local elections because it believes that all adult residents deserve a say in their local government. While D.C. law allows noncitizens to vote only in local elections, 40 States and the Federal Government allowed noncitizens to vote in local, State, territorial, and Federal elections at various points, including at the founding.

The Federal Government first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections only 29 years ago. Today, nearly 20 cities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

As the House has considered this bill, Republicans have repeatedly said the franchise is a right of citizenship. If that is what Republicans believe, I hope they will finally grant American citizens who live in D.C. the right to vote for voting representation in Congress. I have introduced H.R. 51 to do so.

Pursuant to the Admissions Clause and District Clause of the Constitution, H.R. 51 would admit the residential and commercial areas of D.C. as a new State. Statehood would not only give D.C. voting representation in Congress, but it would also give D.C. full local self-government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to respect the will of D.C. residents by voting ``no'' on H.R. 884.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Non-Discrimination Home Rule Act of 2025, which would end the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to the District of Columbia government. This bill would treat the D.C. government in the same manner as state governments under RFRA, and allow D.C. to protect LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights.

RFRA, which provides more protection for religious exercise than the First Amendment requires, applies to the federal government and the D.C. government, but not to state governments.

While RFRA was designed to be a shield to protect religious freedom, it is being used, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, as a sword to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community and women. Republicans in Congress have cited RFRA as a justification for trying to overturn D.C. non-discrimination laws. For example, since 2015, Republicans have repeatedly tried to nullify or block D.C.'s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and their families based on reproductive health decisions, claiming, in part, that it violates RFRA.

This bill would help ensure that D.C. is able to enact and carry out non-discrimination laws. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Falun Gong practitioners and supporters in the District of Columbia and around the world who are working to end the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

As a former assistant legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, constitutional lawyer and a lifelong human and civil rights advocate, I take this moment not only to speak out against the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, but also to remember those who have died for their beliefs.

Falun Gong is a peaceful religion that teaches self-improvement through meditation based on slow movements and regimented breathing. For over two decades, Falun Gong practitioners have suffered from detention, torture and organ harvesting at the hands of the Chinese government.

We must fight to raise awareness of those persecuted in China who cannot raise awareness themselves. On May 5, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1540, the Falun Gong Protection Act, which I strongly supported. I will continue to work with colleagues in the House and Senate to pass this bill.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in solidarity with the many Falun Gong practitioners who fight for the freedom to speak and to practice the religion of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the REAL ID Gender Requirement Reform Act, which would repeal the requirement in the REAL ID Act that REAL ID-compliant licenses include gender. Instead, states would decide whether to include gender on their respective REAL ID- compliant licenses. I am pleased Representative Maxwell Frost is co- leading this bill.

Under this bill, if a state includes gender on its REAL ID-compliant licenses, the state must allow individuals to change the gender designation on their license through self-attestation. It would also require states that include gender on their REAL ID-compliant licenses to have a neutral or other designation gender field, in addition to male or female.

Under the REAL ID Act, gender must be included on a license. This can be problematic for transgender and nonbinary individuals. I recognize that some LGBTQ+ individuals do not want gender designations on licenses at all, while others do want gender designation so as to express their identity. I believe this bill strikes the middle ground, while showing Congress' support for LGBTQ+ individuals.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Inspector General Act of 2025, which would create an independent Inspector General (IG) for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB). The FRTIB administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the retirement savings and investment plan for federal employees.

In 2022, the FRTIB launched a new recordkeeping system with the goal of modernizing TSP's recordkeeping, improving customer service and bolstering cybersecurity. There were widespread problems with the new system, including account access, account balances, missing or incomplete information in accounts and hours-long wait times to reach customer service. I, along with several colleagues, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the implementation of the new system. GAO found that FRTIB ``did not fully implement key acquisition management practices . . . [which] significantly increased the risk of a problematic rollout of the new system.''

TSP has approximately 7.2 million participants and $937 billion in assets, making it the world's largest defined contribution plan. Federal employees dedicate their careers to serving our country, and they deserve a retirement savings and investment plan that provides top-tier customer support and security.

While the Employee Benefits Security Administration has oversight responsibility for TSP, as it does for private sector 401(k) plans, there is no IG for the FRTIB. The problems with the rollout of the recordkeeping system are evidence enough that the FRTIB needs an independent IG.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Restroom Access Act of 2025, which would require a retail establishment to provide an individual who has a medical condition requiring immediate use of a restroom, such as Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, access to an employee-only restroom when such an establishment does not have a public restroom. Individuals would be required to present a Department of Labor-issued identification card certifying that they have an eligible medical condition.

Individuals who have certain medical conditions need immediate access to a restroom. When public restrooms are not available, these individuals may experience uncomfortable or embarrassing situations. As long as there are no safety concerns, which this bill addresses, these individuals should be able to use an employee-only restroom.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would require the Directors of two federal agencies, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (PSA), to reside in the District of Columbia during their terms. There are residency requirements for government positions in federal law, D.C. law and the laws of jurisdictions throughout the United States. The primary reason such laws exist is to ensure that certain government officials have a connection to the residents they serve and in-depth knowledge of the unique issues and challenges these residents face. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill in the 117th Congress.

CSOSA and PSA are federal agencies that focus exclusively on D.C. CSOSA supervises individuals on probation, parole or supervised release for violations of D.C. law. PSA makes recommendations regarding pretrial release and supervises defendants for the D.C. Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for D.C. The Directors of CSOSA and PSA should be

required to be D.C. residents since these agencies serve only D.C.

Congress has justifiably required that certain federal officials live in the jurisdictions to which they are appointed, including U.S. district court judges, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys. Similarly, Congress, which controls the local D.C. court system, has justifiably required local D.C. judges and members of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure to reside in D.C.

There is no reason that the Directors of CSOSA and PSA should not be required to live in D.C. These federal officials need to be part of the community they serve. A D.C. residency requirement for these federal officials will lead to better outcomes in the criminal justice system and is a matter of fairness for D.C. residents.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Improving Reentry for District of Columbia Residents in the Bureau of Prisons Act of 2025. This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to place D.C. residents serving sentences for D.C. Code felonies in BOP facilities within 250 miles of D.C. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, individuals serving sentences for D.C. Code felonies are in BOP custody.

Currently, more than 2,000 D.C. residents are serving sentences for D.C. Code felonies, and they are in BOP facilities across the United States. While Congress will not provide funding to BOP to build a new facility for these D.C. residents, there are more than enough existing BOP facilities within 250 miles of D.C. to house all these D.C. residents. Under this bill, BOP could place a D.C. resident outside 250 miles upon the request or consent of a resident, and BOP could place a D.C. resident outside 250 miles without consent in extraordinary circumstances.

This bill would help D.C. residents in BOP maintain relationships with family and support networks and reenter the community after prison.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation Funding Eligibility Act, which would make the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) eligible for funding under the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Program, the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program, the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Program and the National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program, also known as the Mega Program. Funding under these transportation programs is essential to implement the planned expansion and modernization of Union Station in the District of Columbia, known as the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (USEP). Senator Chris Van Hollen has introduced this bill in the Senate.

Union Station is owned by the federal government, and USRC, a nonprofit, manages and operates the station under a lease with the federal government. The members of USRC's board of directors are the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the Federal City Council, the District of Columbia and the USRC President and CEO. USRC is the only entity exclusively dedicated to the management and operations of Union Station and therefore should be eligible for funding under the FSP Program, the CRISI Program, the BUILD Program and the Mega Program.

Union Station is a vital local, regional and national intermodal transportation hub that, pre-pandemic, welcomed more than 100,000 travelers and visitors each day--more than either Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport or Washington Dulles International Airport. Located five blocks from the U.S. Capitol, Union Station serves as a gateway to the Nation's Capital, as well as the backbone that connects East Coast passenger rail lines to the north and south. People rely on Union Station every day to get to work and to visit the Nation's Capital.

Despite the vital role Union Station plays in the Nation's Capital, it has not undergone major renovation since the 1980s. The USEP represents a historic transportation and economic development opportunity for the Nation's Capital and the national capital region, but billions of dollars are needed to carry it out. This bill would give USRC access to critical funding.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal of Legislation Act, which would permit the Chair of the Council of the District of Columbia to transmit legislation to Congress in the form of the Chair's choosing, including electronic form. This bill would bring the congressional review process for legislation enacted by D.C. into the electronic age. In the 117th Congress, the Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill.

While I do not believe there should be a congressional review process for D.C. legislation--and I have introduced a bill to eliminate the review process--this bill would not change the review process, except that it would give D.C. flexibility in the form it transmits legislation to Congress. This bill's only purpose is to reduce administrative burdens on D.C. and Congress.

The D.C. Home Rule Act requires the Chair of the D.C. Council to transmit legislation to Congress for a review period. The legislation takes effect upon the expiration of the review period, unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during the review period. The Home Rule Act is silent on the form of transmittal, but Congress has always required the legislation to be physically transmitted.

Electronic records are recognized as valid under federal and state law, and federal, state and local governments conduct official business electronically. For example, under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, which was enacted into law more than 20 years ago, with respect to any interstate transaction in which the parties consent, ``a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.'' In 2002, the E-Government Act, which facilitated the federal government providing information and services to the public electronically, was enacted into law.

Federal agencies transmit regulations and other documents to the Federal Register electronically. Congress is also capable of conducting official business electronically. For example, the House permits Members, including acting through their staff, to introduce legislation and submit statements into the Congressional Record electronically.

The requirement that D.C. physically transmit legislation imposes costs on the Council. The Council engages in a 12-step process to physically transmit legislation, including printing two copies of each bill and committee report, arranging a time for delivery of these documents to the offices of the Speaker and President of the Senate and having two staffers drive to the Capitol to deliver the documents--two are necessary because of parking restrictions.

The physical transmittal process also imposes costs on Congress. The following congressional offices and committees are involved in the physical transmittal process: the offices of the Speaker and President of the Senate, the House and Senate Parliamentarians, the House Clerk, the Senate Secretary, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The aftermath of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol highlighted the burdens of physical transmittal. After temporary fencing was installed around the Capitol, D.C. employees could not enter the Capitol. This delayed transmittal of D.C. legislation until Council and congressional staff developed a workaround, which consisted of staff meeting outside the fencing to transmit legislation.

I recognize that Congress requires all so-called executive communications, including D.C. legislation, to be physically transmitted, but D.C. is the only entity required to transmit legislation to Congress for a review period.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Train Noise and Vibrations Reduction Act of 2025, which would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a report to Congress containing recommendations on how to reduce train noise and vibrations near homes, as well as estimates of the costs and benefits of each such recommendation. The report would include recommendations regarding modifications to trains, tracks and maintenance procedures, speed limits, mitigation measures between tracks and homes, the distance between tracks and homes, limits on the number of trains and the number of cars on trains, limits on hours of operations, building noise insulation and modifications to soil conditions. The report would be due to Congress no later than one year after the enactment of this bill.

I hear from District of Columbia residents frequently about the negative impact of train noise and vibrations on their lives. The noise and vibrations can harm health and quality of life and can even damage the structural integrity of homes. As a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I have been committed to reducing transportation noise pollution. I have convened community meetings with the Federal Railroad Administration, the D.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to examine how to reduce train noise and vibrations. A GAO report on reducing train noise and vibrations can help us identify viable, long-term solutions for communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.